UK's Palestine Action loses bid to pause ban as terrorist group
The High Court refused to pause the ban and, following a late-night hearing, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against that decision at just after 2130 GMT. British lawmakers this week decided to ban Palestine Action after its activists broke into a Royal Air Force base and damaged two planes in protest against what the group says is Britain's support for Israel. Proscription will make it a crime to be a member of Palestine Action that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
Palestine Action has increasingly targeted Israel-linked companies in Britain, often spraying red paint, blocking entrances or damaging equipment. The group accuses the British government of complicity in what it says are Israeli war crimes in its ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Israel has repeatedly denied committing abuses in its war in Gaza, which began after Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023.
Ammori's lawyer Raza Husain said the proscription marked the first time Britain had sought to ban a group carrying out such direct action, describing it as 'an ill-considered, discriminatory, authoritarian abuse of statutory power'.
Critics of the government's decision, including some United Nations experts and civil liberties groups, have also argued that damaging property does not amount to terrorism.
DEFENCE FIRMS TARGETED
The group has particularly focused on Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems and Britain's government cited a raid at an Elbit site last year when it decided to proscribe the group. The decision to ban the group came as four members were charged over the incident at the RAF Brize Norton air base, in which military planes were sprayed with red paint. Husain said that was the only example of action targeting a government or military facility and previous incidents were against private companies, to support his argument against proscribing Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Britain's interior minister, has said violence and criminal damage have no place in legitimate protest and that Palestine Action's activities justify proscription. Judge Martin Chamberlain earlier ruled against Ammori's bid to pause the ban, saying that any harm to Palestine Action members or supporters did not outweigh 'the strong public interest in maintaining the order' to ban the group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Hezbollah chief says will not surrender under threat from Israel
BEIRUT: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said Sunday his group would not surrender or lay down its weapons in response to Israeli threats, despite pressure on the Lebanese militants to disarm. 'This threat will not make us accept surrender,' Qassem said in a televised speech to thousands of his supporters in the southern suburbs of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, during the Shiite Muslim religious commemoration of Ashura. Lebanese leaders who took office in the aftermath of a war between Israel and Hezbollah last year have repeatedly vowed a state monopoly on bearing arms while demanding Israel comply with a November ceasefire that ended the fighting. Qassem, who succeeding longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him in September, said the group's fighters would not abandon their arms and asserted that Israel's 'aggression' must first stop. His speech came as US envoy Tom Barrack was expected in Beirut on Monday. Lebanese authorities are due to deliver a response to Barrack's request for Iran-backed Hezbollah to be disarmed by the end of the year, according to a Lebanese official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Lebanese authorities say they have been dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure in the south, near the Israeli border. Israel has continued to strike Lebanon despite the November ceasefire, claiming to hit Hezbollah targets and accusing Beirut of not doing enough to disarm the group. According to the ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah is to pull its fighters back north of the Litani river, some 30 kilometres (20 miles) from the Israeli frontier. Israel was to withdraw its troops from all of Lebanon, but has kept them deployed in five points it deemed strategic. – AFP
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
‘No surrender': Disarmament deadline looms but Hezbollah holds its ground
BEIRUT, July 6 — Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said today his group would not surrender or lay down its weapons in response to Israeli threats, despite pressure on the Lebanese group to disarm. 'This threat will not make us accept surrender,' Qassem said in a televised speech to thousands of his supporters in the southern suburbs of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, during the Shiite Muslim religious commemoration of Ashura. Lebanese leaders who took office in the aftermath of a war between Israel and Hezbollah last year have repeatedly vowed a state monopoly on bearing arms while demanding Israel comply with a November ceasefire that ended the fighting. Qassem, who succeeding longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him in September, said the group's fighters would not abandon their arms and asserted that Israel's 'aggression' must first stop. His speech came as US envoy Tom Barrack was expected in Beirut tomorrow. Lebanese authorities are due to deliver a response to Barrack's request for Iran-backed Hezbollah to be disarmed by the end of the year, according to a Lebanese official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Lebanese authorities say they have been dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure in the south, near the Israeli border. Israel has continued to strike Lebanon despite the November ceasefire, claiming to hit Hezbollah targets and accusing Beirut of not doing enough to disarm the group. According to the ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah is to pull its fighters back north of the Litani river, some 30km from the Israeli frontier. Israel was to withdraw its troops from all of Lebanon, but has kept them deployed in five points it deemed strategic. — AFP
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
High Court in Singapore orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton S$200,000 in damages over counterfeit goods
SINGAPORE: An Instagram seller who sold fake Louis Vuitton items as authentic and ghosted the High Court during court proceedings has been ordered to pay S$200,000 in damages to the French luxury fashion house for trademark infringements. Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items – a fake passport cover, for instance, was priced at $159, compared with $560 to $945 for the real thing. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the infringements in July 2022 and conducted a sting operation. A representative made test purchases worth $2,100 from Ng's first Instagram account 'emcase_sg'. LVM confirmed the goods were counterfeit and issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. Instead of stopping, Ng shifted operations to a new Instagram account, 'emcrafts_sg', and resumed sales. To catch him again, an LVM representative made a second undercover purchase. The company later filed a lawsuit in August 2023. Ng ignored the proceedings and did not appear in court. On Nov 30, 2023, the High Court ruled in LVM's favour and went on to assess damages. Computing its damages, LVM said it should be awarded $4.84 million in damages but claimed $2.9 million against Ng – based on 29 infringing acts at $100,000 each, the statutory cap. But Justice Dedar Singh Gill disagreed with the claims. 'The claimant's proposed quantum of $2.9 million is grossly excessive,' he said in a written judgment on July 2. He limited the maximum award to $900,000, or $100,000 for each of the nine different types of goods where there were infringements, ultimately awarding $200,000. While LVM argued that the counterfeits dilute its brand, the judge questioned the financial impact. 'I have my doubts as to whether the claimant will suffer lost sales in any significant way... knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods.' He added: 'One must bear in mind that the defendant is a sole proprietor operating through a social media channel. He is not a large-scale manufacturer who has distributed the offending goods to other retailers and sparked other chains of infringement.' In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. 'The defendant's modus operandi when it came to promoting his products was to re-post Instagram posts and/or stories by customers who had purchased his products... ostensibly with the aim of thanking them and showing off their rave reviews,' he said. 'In my view, this has the effect of compounding the defendant's false representations.' He added that Ng had 'deployed his coterie of 'influencers' to propagate the misrepresentation about his 'authentic' products more widely to his followers and the public at large'. In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. Justice Gill also addressed Ng's claim on Instagram that the products were 'upcycled' from real Louis Vuitton goods. 'This was a lie upon a lie which compounded the false representation perpetrated upon members of the public,' he wrote. Upcycling typically refers to the reuse of discarded material or waste to create a product of higher value or quality than the original. The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. 'Such online retailers can easily spread out all of their eggs in multiple baskets by setting up different online platforms at relatively low costs to sell their goods,' he said. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach to continuing his infringement – in that even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. Justice Gill criticised Ng for flouting a previous court order by making his Instagram account private – while still allowing his followers to view it. 'It was clearly an attempt by the defendant to mask his infringing activities (and potentially continue the infringement).' The judge also rebuked Ng over his refusal to take part in the legal proceedings. 'The defendant did not participate in any part of these proceedings, thus depriving the claimant of an opportunity to discover the full extent of his infringement to prosecute its claim and quantify its losses,' he wrote. 'A strong message needs to be sent to the defendant that he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law.' The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. Justice Gill concluded: 'The defendant has shown himself to be a recalcitrant infringer, and he will need to face the consequences accordingly.' LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Neo Xuan Hao Edwin from Ravindran Associates. Ng was unrepresented. Despite the High Court victory, it remains uncertain whether LVM will recover the $200,000. As at July 3, Ng's registered business EMCASE SG has ceased registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and his two known Instagram accounts have vanished. However, a similarly named account – ' – remains active, appearing to sell Louis Vuitton-branded goods. - The Straits Times/ANN
